How can you be a True Christian™ if you don't take the Eden story literally?

[Sgt. Pepper]

A young Earth and Universe, a talking serpent, the flood and the parting of seas, Moses' cane turning into a snake, dead people coming out of their graves, Jesus ascending into the clouds etc. Believe it if you want, but why expect non-Christians to believe those things?

There is also a story of a talking donkey and a man who survived three days inside the belly of a big fish.

 

[lukethethird]

There is also a story of a talking donkey and a man who survived three days inside the belly of a big fish.

But those two really happened.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Not everyone needs saving, I haven't done anything requiring someone else to die for me, and if I did I would have to take responsibility for that myself without a scapegoat.

If you replace the name Jesus with Attis (the Phrygian-Greek god of vegetation), and you'll have a strikingly familiar savior story similar to that of Jesus, except the Greek myths about Attis are dated 1250 BCE, which predates the Bible and Christianity (see here). Furthermore, you could replace the name Jesus with any of the other gods described in the following articles linked below, and you'll have more strikingly familiar stories that not only parallel the stories of his alleged crucifixion, death, and resurrection but also parallel other stories that have been written in the Bible about his supposed life on Earth.

And, like the myths about Attis, these other stories about Christ-like figures from Greek mythology and other pagan religions predate both the Bible and Christianity. I recommend learning more about Jesus in comparative mythology. You can start here: Jesus in comparative mythology. In my opinion, these other accounts of Christlike figures demonstrate that paganism had a significant influence on the stories about Jesus and that Christianity's beliefs are not unique. In other words, the savior story of Jesus isn't the first of its kind and, in my opinion, isn't any more believable than all the other savior stories that predate it. I know that Christians like to claim that the Bible was divinely inspired by God and that Christianity is the only true religion, but I don't believe that is true based on the information provided in these articles and in other similar ones. Christianity, in my opinion, is a cheap imitation of other religions.

10 Christ-Like Figures that predate Jesus

The Truth About Mythological Figures Similar To Jesus

Other Gods That Rose From the Dead in Spring Before Jesus Christ

Based on the information I've read, if a religious leader named Yehoshua (also called Yeshua or Jesus) existed in biblical times, he was most likely just an ordinary man and popular religious teacher whose devoted followers embellished the stories about him, and more embellishment and folklore were later added to these stories to make him appear to be more than he actually was. I believe that it's probable that he was simply a well-liked religious teacher whose loyal followers spread false stories about him to make him appear godlike. I also think that it's likely that a few stories about him were copied and adapted from Greek mythology and other ancient pagan religions, which predate Christianity and the Bible. In my opinion, it's plagiarized pagan myths.

 

[F1fan]

I’m not criticizing you or others, yet I don’t consider you to be solely a critical thinker, nor are my beliefs based solely on faith without evidence. Evidence abounds which supports reasonable faith in a Creator and the biblical text; the universe, creation, historical, archaeological, and prophetic.

This is a typical evangelical response that aims to minimize reason and inflate faith. This is similar to minimizing results in science while falsely inflating creationism.

Critical thinking is a process that follows evidence to sound conclusions and it is explained. That the faithful distorts this process when it is applied to theirs religious beliefs is another negative quality of faith.

“… reason and evidence may legitimately point the direction for faith to go—and must do so. Indeed, faith must not violate evidence and reason or it would be irrational. Faith takes a step beyond reason but only in the direction that reason and evidence have pointed.

Faith takes a giant leap into implausible assumptions. There is seldom evidence.

The idea of a “leap of faith” (that faith must be irrational) has been promoted by some schools of philosophy and religion. If that were true, however, there would be no basis other than feelings or intuition for what one believes. As a consequence, one could believe or have faith in any-thing.”

Leap of faith typically means gambling on an outcome that a person lacks control over. It can be deadly and stupid.

“One must have some evidence even to believe there is a God. Otherwise, how could the idea of God be sustained?

Thankfully, the evidence is all around us: “The heavens declare the glory of God. . . . For the invisible things of him [God] from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead, so that they [all mankind] are without excuse” (Psalm:19:1; Romans:1:20). One cannot learn very much of the incredible nature of the universe, from the beautiful simplicity of the atomic structure of the elements to the incomprehensible complexity of a living cell with ten thousand chemical reactions going on at once in perfect balance with one another, without realizing that it couldn’t have happened by chance.”

In Defense of the Faith

Our monthly feature excerpted from Dave Hunt's book of the same title. What Role Do Evidence and Reason Play? Question: I can see that it makes no sense and would be very dang

www.thebereancall.org

This isn’t evidence. This is an interpretation of sensory data that is heavily influenced by implausible religious assumptions. That is the antithesis of critical thinking.

 

[F1fan]

Of course, God and His word is moral. He’s the Creator and One who defines morality. The Bible is a historical narrative on human sinfulness, immorality, lawlessness or right actions and moral behaviors when in obedience to God.

You are speaking as a true believer who has no option but to say all this. Critical thinkers don’t make the assumptions you true believers do so are able to come to more valid assessments and conclusions.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

This is a typical evangelical response that aims to minimize reason and inflate faith. This is similar to minimizing results in science while falsely inflating creationism.

Critical thinking is a process that follows evidence to sound conclusions and it is explained. That the faithful distorts this process when it is applied to theirs religious beliefs is another negative quality of faith.

Faith takes a giant leap into implausible assumptions. There is seldom evidence.

Leap of faith typically means gambling on an outcome that a person lacks control over. It can be deadly and stupid.

This isn’t evidence. This is an interpretation of sensory data that is heavily influenced by implausible religious assumptions. That is the antithesis of critical thinking.

You are speaking as a true believer who has no option but to say all this. Critical thinkers don’t make the assumptions you true believers do so are able to come to more valid assessments and conclusions.

Winner frubal.

On a side note, I wish that the powers that be on RF would bring back the old frubals.

 

[InChrist]

Of course, what you stated are your personal religious beliefs, which are obviously not shared by everyone. If you want to believe that you need a savior, that's fine, but to say that nonbelievers also need Jesus as a savior or to assert any other of your beliefs as definitive facts could be considered preaching and proselytizing, which is against Rule 8. As stated in another thread, say whatever you want; just understand that you must present religious views as your own, not the one and only truth (even if you think they are). I don't care what you believe as long as you don't try to impose your beliefs on me.

That’s right, they are my beliefs which I am discussing just like everyone here shares their beliefs, thoughts, and perspectives. Obviously, I have no way to impose my beliefs on you or anyone, as well as no desire to. Belief in Jesus Christ must be made freely and personally to be genuine. It can’t be forced.

 

[InChrist]

Not everyone needs saving, I haven't done anything requiring someone else to die for me, and if I did I would have to take responsibility for that myself without a scapegoat.

According to the scriptures, ALL have sinned and need the Savior. Those who don’t have pardon through Jesus will face the responsibility of eternally paying for their own wrongdoing. Of course, you are free to disbelieve that.

 

[InChrist]

You are speaking as a true believer who has no option but to say all this. Critical thinkers don’t make the assumptions you true believers do so are able to come to more valid assessments and conclusions.

I am a true believer, saved by and born again to new life in Christ. I definitely have options though. I could pick and choose, I could reject parts of God’s word, I could assume I know better than the Creator, or any number of things. God desires critical thinking and reason…
Come now, and let us reason together,” Says the Lord, “Though your sins are like scarlet, They shall be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, They shall be as wool. (Isaiah 1:18)

Above all God desires freedom.

 

[ppp]

According to the scriptures, ALL have sinned and need the Savior.

Books say a lot of of things that lack credibility. That is just one of them..

 

[Ella S.]

There's a progression of Bible and NT stories that "true" Christian/Bible believers are supposed to take literally. But at some point, more and more of them stop insisting on it being literal. Like the Pentecostal kinds of Christians take the gifts of the spirit very literal. They believe that Jesus and God can and will heal them. So, some of them take it to the extreme and don't go to doctors and don't take any medications and trust the God will heal them of cancer and other diseases.

Then, my all-time favorite Christians, for taking things too far, are the snake handlers. Because on verse says that a believer in Jesus will be able to drink deadly poison and will be able to pick up serpents and not be harmed, they drink poison and handle rattlesnakes... and lots of them get maimed or die.

So, even with Christians that claim to "believe" literally hit a point to where they start to use their brains, and figure, "No, it's just too crazy to believe that." Yeah, but a literal 6-day creation a few thousand years ago, talking animals, a world-wide flood, a virgin birth and people coming back from the dead were believable? Or is it because those other extreme literal beliefs can get a person dead? So, they take the time to analyze those verses and question them before they go all in and say they believe and then act on them?

Yes, thank you! I'm not sure I would put it the way you have here, but I think you're getting at a similar concept that I've had in the back of my mind that's sometimes difficult to express to believers.

I've met Catholics that don't believe in Satan or demons, because that's just too weird for them. They believe in God but, for whatever reason, draw the line at Satan? Really? It seems so bizarre and arbitrary to me.

If they can accept that Satan is a metaphor and doesn't exist, why can't they accept that God is a metaphor and doesn't exist? If they believe that the kingdom of Heaven is within us, then why can't they let go of a belief in a literal afterlife?

I think there are a number of "cultural Christians" who like the idea of Heaven and a loving God watching over them, so they suspend their disbelief when they celebrate Christian holidays, go to church functions, or pray in private. They might self-identify as an agnostic Christian, a lapsed Catholic, or "questioning," because they realize that they don't actually believe, deep down. It's more that they're a part of the Christian subculture and/or haven't really stopped identifying as the religion they were raised with.

Ironically, I think those are the people that are the most antagonistic towards atheists, in my experience. The Bible-thumping, true-believing Christians will want to convert me out of a genuine concern for my soul. These Christian nontheists are the ones who see my atheism as a some kind of edgy counter-cultural lifestyle, rather than a genuine philosophical position, because they project their own cultural tribalism onto me.

Those are the Christians that I wish would just rip off the band-aid, admit they're atheists, and leave the toxic hate groups masquerading as church communities behind.

 

[F1fan]

According to the scriptures, ALL have sinned and need the Savior.

The Bible isn’t a factual source. It has no inherent authority over humanity. Any meaning the Bible has is assigned by believers. Sin is a Christian concept that isn’t a fact. Salvation is a Jewish idea that Christians abducted and changed.

Those who don’t have pardon through Jesus will face the responsibility of eternally paying for their own wrongdoing. Of course, you are free to disbelieve that.

This is nothing but Christian dogma, and has no basis in fact. You believe it for non-reasoned purposes.

 

[lukethethird]

According to the scriptures, ALL have sinned and need the Savior. Those who don’t have pardon through Jesus will face the responsibility of eternally paying for their own wrongdoing. Of course, you are free to disbelieve that.

Of course I don't believe it, why should I since I have a brain to think with?

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

The Bible isn’t a factual source. It has no inherent authority over humanity. Any meaning the Bible has is assigned by believers. Sin is a Christian concept that isn’t a fact. Salvation is a Jewish idea that Christians abducted and changed.

This is nothing but Christian dogma, and has no basis in fact. You believe it for non-reasoned purposes.

Well said.

As I said in my previous post (#83), I don't think the savior story of Jesus is any more believable than the other similar savior stories that predate it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Obviously, neither you or I can or do know everything there is to know about every inch of this earth and life on it, much less the whole universe. But with what we do know, so far, I believe God is real because…

1. The intricacy and complexity of a single living cell which shows it could not have arisen from non-living matter by chance, but points to an intelligent Creator.

2. The technological intelligence of modern humans beings over a billion other species point to an intelligent Creator and show we couldn’t have evolved by chance.

3. The earth and universe appears to be fine tuned and purposely designed for life.

4. The New Testament has one coherent theme concerning Jesus Christ, though written over 50 years, by at least nine authors who wrote 27 books, without a common editor. This points to inspiration by an intelligent God orchestrating the text and message.

I believe these are just a few arguments which point to the reality of a Creator God, with empirical evidence that is falsifiable and which can be tested by attempting replication. Yet, the more we know concerning these four points the more unlikely it appears that the above could have happened by chance, without an intelligent Creator.

Why do you think that one has to go over the whole Earth to know that the stories in the Bible have been refuted. We do not need to know that. There are enough obvious contradictions to the claims that we do not need any more. if one wants to claim that the Bible is accurate the burden of proof is upon believers and they do not seem to have any evidence.

As to your claims let's go over them.

!. No that is just an argument from ignorance on your part. Yes, it is complex, but that does not mean that it cannot be understood. It only means that you cannot understand it. Do you not see you your error?

2. Again no, Nothing points to an intelligent designer. You, like all creationists, do not understand the concept of evidence and you need to learn what is and what is not evidence. Handwaving is not a valid argument.

3. Nope, once again, they only appear to be fine tuned to the ignorant. You need more than appearances. You would need to prove that it is fine tuned and the more we learn the clearer it is that it is not fine tuned.

4. And those accounts often contradict each other on rather important points. They were also edited. You simply are unaware of the history of the Bible. When early church fathers decided what gospels to keep and which ones to throw away that is an editing process. It occurred in the fourth century. There were on the order of 40 gospels and they narrowed it down to 4. That is a lot of editing.

 

[Eli G]

... I don't think the savior story of Jesus is any more believable than the other similar savior stories that predate it.

What "savior story" which predate "the savior story of Jesus" do you know?
Why they are not believable? What's your criteria to determine that in those cases?
In what sense are those stories comparable to "the savior story of Jesus"?

Any evidence of your claims?

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

The Bible isn’t a factual source. It has no inherent authority over humanity. Any meaning the Bible has is assigned by believers. Sin is a Christian concept that isn’t a fact. Salvation is a Jewish idea that Christians abducted and changed.

This is nothing but Christian dogma, and has no basis in fact. You believe it for non-reasoned purposes.

I'd also like to say that, as a former evangelical Christian, I understand the beliefs that you're refuting. As I've explained before, I used to believe that when I was a devout Christian as well, but then I removed my rose-colored glasses and faced my reality, which was that I had been ignorant of trusting in God for so long and had mistakenly assumed he would be my heavenly father. I eventually learned how to care for myself and my family, and I finally realized that I don't need or want God in my life and that I'm far better off emotionally without believing in and having faith in God. My life is so much better now.

I was a devout Christian for 30 years and genuinely believed in God for years before that. I finally decided to renounce my belief in God because I never experienced anything that other Christians claimed happened to them, even though we believed in the same God. For instance, I knew Christians who claimed to experience peace and joy in their lives because they believed in God, while I, on the other hand, felt nothing but sadness and despair during the years I was a devout Christian. To be quite honest, I only began to feel peace and joy in my life after I renounced my belief in God and abandoned Christianity. Have you ever heard of the expression "playing church?" That's exactly what I did. I went through the motions and pretended to experience God, as other Christians claimed they had, but I never did. I tried really hard to experience God, but I felt such hopelessness whenever I tried and failed.

It took me many years to finally admit to myself that I had been pretending to experience God's presence in my life when I never genuinely did. I knew that I needed to be honest with myself and stop pretending. I finally realized that I was wasting my life by pretending to feel the presence of God in my life when he either doesn't really exist or, if he does, obviously doesn't give a damn about me. It's been almost three years since I did this intense soul-searching and asked myself why I was so committed to clinging to the false hope that I had in believing in God. I realized that believing in God was an emotional crutch for me. I also recognized that if I was ever going to recover emotionally and change my life for the better, I needed to let go of that crutch. My mental health has significantly improved since I disavowed my belief in God and Christianity. In retrospect, it was one of the best decisions I've ever made. I don't regret my decision, but I wish that I had made it years earlier so that I could have avoided decades of depression and emotional agony.

 

[Eli G]

More of the manual ... Internet is full of these fake "my story is this one" ... Who cares? Psss.
This is a debate of beliefs and religious practices, not a tell me your story like in a bar. Boring.

Since you said I don't think the savior story of Jesus is any more believable than the other similar savior stories that predate it, why don't you tell us:

What "savior story" which predate "the savior story of Jesus" do you know?
Why they are not believable? What's your criteria to determine that in those cases?
In what sense are those stories comparable to "the savior story of Jesus"?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am a true believer, saved by and born again to new life in Christ. I definitely have options though. I could pick and choose, I could reject parts of God’s word, I could assume I know better than the Creator, or any number of things. God desires critical thinking and reason…
Come now, and let us reason together,” Says the Lord, “Though your sins are like scarlet, They shall be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, They shall be as wool. (Isaiah 1:18)

Above all God desires freedom.

All Christians do that. Whether on purpose or via convoluted rationalization. If one is a serious believer the biggest mistake is to try to read the Bible literally. If one is honest that only leads to atheism. If one accepts the lessons of the Bible then one may be able to maintain one's faith and still reason rationally.

 

[lukethethird]

More of the manual ... Internet is full of these fake "my story is this one" ... Who cares? Psss.
This is a debate of beliefs and religious practices, not a tell me your story. Boring.

Since you said I don't think the savior story of Jesus is any more believable than the other similar savior stories that predate it, why don't you tell us:

What "savior story" which predate "the savior story of Jesus" do you know?
Why they are not believable? What's your criteria to determine that in those cases?
In what sense are those stories comparable to "the savior story of Jesus"?

Jesus dying for our sins is known as a scapegoat religion. If you want to know where the term scapegoat comes from do a search, it predates Christianity.